Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Technical Note

A simplified approach for assessing the leak-before-break for the

flawed pressure vessels
P. Kannan a , K.S. Amirthagadeswaran b , T. Christopher c , B. Nageswara Rao d,∗
a
Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, NTPC Ltd, Jyothinagar 505215, India
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore 641013, India
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli 627007, India
d
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, School of Mechanical and Civil Sciences, K L University, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Guntur 522502, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Surface cracks or embedded cracks in pressure vessels under service may grow and form stable through-
Received 26 October 2015 thickness cracks causing leak prior to failure. If this leak-before-break phenomenon takes place, then there
Received in revised form 3 February 2016 is a possibility of preventing the vessel failure. This paper presents a simplified approach for assessing the
Accepted 4 February 2016
leak-before-break or failure of the flawed pressure vessels. This approach is validated through comparison
of existing test data.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Part-through cracks in pressure vessels under service loads may
grow and form stable through-thickness cracks causing leak prior
to failure known as the leak-before-break (LBB) phenomenon. If
this phenomenon happens, then there is a possibility of preventing
the vessels from failure. If the part-through cracks under service
loading conditions grown to critical size, then the vessel may fail
catastrophically prior to the formation of the through-thickness
crack. The significant parameters affecting the critical crack size
in a pressure vessel are the applied stress levels, the location of the
crack and its orientation, and the strength as well as the fracture
toughness of the material.
For safe design of pressure vessels, LBB is one of the important
criteria (Pacholkova and Taylor, 2002). Designers apply LBB crite-
rion to structural components (which are subjected to high or low
fatigue loads) in nuclear power plants, liquid nitrogen tankers and
chemical plants. The LBB concept is applied to high pressure ves-
sels and related plant equipments (Nam and Abn, 2002). Kawaguchi
et al. (2004) have examined the LBB behavior for axially notched
X65 and X80 gas pipelines. Drubaya et al. (2003) have provided
a guide for defect assessment at elevated temperature. Toughry
(2002) has developed an acceptance/rejection criterion for high
pressure steel and aluminum cylinders. Zhou and Shen (1996) have
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 8106762175.
E-mail address: bnrao52@rediffmail.com (B. Nageswara Rao).
discussed on the LBB assessment methods. The concept of LBB was
initially introduced by Irwin. An analogous method later on was
developed by Irwin and Hood. These two methods are very simple
and provide conservative estimates. Wilkowski (2000) states that
Irwin has performed the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
analysis on pressure vessels specifying the axial crack length less
than twice the shell thickness, and observed greater crack driv-
ing force in radial direction than in the axial direction of the
vessel.
Experiments of Rana (1987) on gas cylinders containing a sur-
face crack (whose length is four times the shell wall thickness)
indicate the validity of LBB criterion. Sharples and Clayton (1990)
have generated crack depth versus crack length curves for assessing
leakage or break of the flawed pressure vessels. Kim (2004) has per-
formed LBB analysis on through-thickness cracked pipes. Kim et al.
(2005) have proposed an elastic–plastic J-integral approach to car-
ryout LBB analysis for circumferential through-thickness cracked
pipes. The plane strain fracture toughness (KIC ) of the material can
be evaluated from the Compact Tension (CT) specimens follow-
ing the ASTM E399 standards (ASTM, 2013a), whereas the crack
growth resistance curve (R-curve) of the material can be generated
following the ASTM E561 standards (ASTM, 2013b). The fracture
toughness (KC ) where plane strain conditions are not fully met can
be determined from the point of tangency between the R-curve and
the crack driving force curve appropriate for the loading geometry.
The crack growth observed in KIC specimens after failure is very
small whereas it is appreciable in KC specimens. Failure load esti-
mates based on the lower bound KIC values will be conservative and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.02.013
0029-5493/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26 21

are: KF = KIC and m = 0. When the stress intensity factor (KI ) of the
Nomenclature through-thickness cracked vessel under service loads is less than
the plane strain fracture toughness (KIC ), the vessel leaks initially,
a depth of a surface crack grow gradually to the critical size and fail. Detection of leaking at
2c length of a surface crack the initial stage will be helpful in preventing the failure of vessel. To
2c* through-thickness crack assess the life of the flawed vessel, it is essential to know the path of
KC plane-stress fracture toughness the part-through crack grown to the through thickness crack. If the
KI stress intensity factor stress intensity factor (KI ) of the through-thickness cracked vessel
KIC plane-strain fracture toughness for the stress levels falls below the failure assessment diagram, then
KF , m and p fracture toughness parameters in Kmax −  f rela- the vessel leaks. For KI ≤ KIC , the crack growth will be slower. Crack
tion (1) propagation will result if KI ≥ KIC of the material.
Kmax stress intensity factor corresponding to the failure
stress ( f )
1.2. Relationship between KC and KIC
P internal pressure
Pb bursting pressure of unflawed cylindrical vessel
The ratio of plastic zone size to thickness (ˇC ) is a convenient
Pf failure pressure of flawed cylindrical vessel
measure of the degree of shear-lip. The dimensionless parameters
Ri inner radius of the cylindrical shell
ˇC and ˇIC for plane-stress and plane-strain situations defined by
t thickness
Irwin are (Irwin, 1962; Irwin and de Wit, 1983):
ˇC , ˇIC dimensionless parameters (ratio of plastic zone size
to thickness) for plane-stress and plane-strain situ-  2  2
1 KC 1 KIC
ations ˇC = ; and ˇIC = .
a incremental flaw growth t ys t ys
K stress intensity range
Here  ys is the yield strength or 0.2% proof stress (RP0.2 ) and t is
 b ,  m increment in bending and membrane stresses
the thickness. An approximate empirical relationship between ˇC
 crack shape parameter
and ˇIC (valid for ˇC < 2) proposed by Irwin is (Subhananda Rao
f hoop stress at failure pressure of flawed vessel
et al., 2005)
 ys yield strength or 0.2% proof stress (RP0.2 )
u hoop stress at failure pressure of unflawed pressure 2
ˇC = ˇIC (1 + 1.4ˇIC ) (4)
vessel
 ult ultimate tensile strength (Rm) 1.3. Background of LBB studies

In the 1960s, Battelle had initiated the development of LBB

design based on KIC requires unreasonably thick panels in normally
thin sectioned structural members as in aerospace industry.
1.1. Relationship between Kmax and  f
Kannan et al. (2013) have examined the applicability of a mod-
ified two-parameter criterion (Christopher et al., 2004a, 2005a)
while assessing the fracture strength of structural components.
They utilized a relation between the stress intensity factor (Kmax )
and the corresponding stress at failure ( f ) as
     p 
Kmax = KF 1−m
f
− (1 − m)
f
(1)
u u
Here,  f is the hoop stress at the failure pressure of the flawed
vessel and  u is the hoop stress at the failure pressure of the
unflawed vessel. For uniaxial tensile specimens,  u is equal to the
ultimate tensile strength ( ult or Rm) of the material. KF , m and p are
fracture parameters to be determined from the test data of cracked
configurations. The fracture parameter, KF has the units of the frac-
√ detected. Yoo and Huh (2013) have proposed a methodology for
ture toughness (MPa m), whereas the second parameter 0 ≤ m ≤ 1
and to account for plasticity the third parameter, p dependent on
m is given by
methodologies by performing nonlinear fracture analysis for axial
flaws in gas pipelines. The axial flaw equations for nuclear pip-
ing have been implemented in Appendices C and H of section XI
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code. Various researchers
have made LBB studies applicable to nuclear piping (Bryan et al.,
1982; Proc IAEAP, 1983; Moan et al., 1990), gas and oil pipelines
(Wilkowski and Eiber, 1981; Roos et al., 1989), pressure vessels
(Pellini, 1969; Kiefner et al., 1973; Rintamaa et al., 1988; Setz and
Gruter, 1990), missile casings (Pierce, 1970), etc. Pacholkova and
Taylor have highlighted the proposals of regulatory procedures by
various research organizations (USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy,
Spain, Czech Republic, Russia and Japan) to accommodate LBB for
pressure vessels and pipework in nuclear design (Zdarek et al.,
1995; Bergman and Brickstad, 1995, 1997; Arzhaev et al., 1996;
Bartholome and Wellein, 1995).
Sharples (2012) has reviewed the LBB methodologies of the
Europe nuclear industries and reported that all the LBB proce-
dures share the same basis of specifying the flaw size in such a
way that the loss of fluid escaping the through wall crack can be
LBB assessment of piping systems in fast breeder reactors. Their
emphasis is on assessment of leakage under low pressure situation,
failure under crack growth, and buckling of thin-walled and large-
  

1
√  diametric elbow structures. Wakai et al. (2014) have demonstrated
1 1 1
p= 1  ln 1 − √ (1 + ) + 2−1 m their LBB procedure with sufficient margin on Japan sodium cooled
ln (1 + ) (1 − m) 2 2 
2 fast reactor steel pipes. In a recent review, Bourga et al. (2015)
(2) have indicated the requirement of adequate margin between the
smallest detectable leak size and the critical crack size to support
and  in Eq. (2) is LBB. It is noted from their review that most countries use a safety
factor of 10 on leak detection and 2 on crack length (or applied
4
= √ (3) stresses). Japanese recommend a safety factor 5 on leak detection
3+ 9 − 8m and 1 on crack length. In contrast, the UK procedures do not provide
If the fracture data corresponds to the plane strain fracture tough- explicit guidance on the safety factor (Bourga et al., 2015). It is a
ness (KIC ) of the specimens, then the fracture parameters in Eq. (1) continuous process of improving the LBB procedures in order to
22 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26

prevent catastrophic failures, which require reliable leak detec- Assuming 2c and a are the length and depth of a surface crack,
tion methods and fracture data as well as leak data of controlled the crack growth can be predicted from the following two equa-
experiments. tions:
a
= Cons tan t (5)
c
da m
1.4. Leakage = ˛1 (K) 1 (6)
dN
Irregular shape defects embedded in pressure vessels and This procedure effectively simplifies the analysis, but it does
pipelines having narrow ligament or formed near the surfaces, are not agree very well with the experimental evidences: a slender,
characterized as surface cracks. Under service loads, they may reach elliptical, internal crack subjected to uniform cyclic tensile loads
a size and grow unstably to through cracks prior to the failure of gas is transformed into a larger circular crack (Iida and Fujii, 1973);
pipelines. Fatigue crack growth may take place in liquid pipelines and a semi-circular surface crack subjected to out-of-plane bend-
due to significant pressure fluctuations. As the crack grows in length ing loads grows into a long semi-elliptical crack (Kanazawa et al.,
and opens due to fatigue or stress corrosion cracking (SCC), leak- 1972). Kawahara and Kurihara (1975) proposed the propagation
ing of liquid pipelines can be expected with quicker loss of internal path from a surface crack under combined tensile and bending loads
pressure. The time period from the initial leakage to the final stage as
(i.e., the initiation of the unstable crack growth) should be suffi- a a
=A−B (For a sufficiently small initial flaw) (7)
cient for tracing the leakage of through crack by the plant personnel c t
prior to catastrophic failure of the pipeline. This time period can be
−(1/n) a
calculated by integrating the growth law for any applicable sub- a(c∗n − c n ) =A−B (For a shallow flaw with finite length, 2c)
critical growth mechanism. Fracture strength assessment provides t
the crack size at the initiation of unstable crack growth under (8)
service loading conditions. The crack opening area (COA) of the Here A = 0.98 + 0.07BR , A = 0.98 + 0.07BR , B = 0.06 + 0.94BR , the
through crack is required to estimate the leak flow rate appropri- bending ratio BR =  b /( m +  b ), and the empirical constant,
ate to the leak detection system capabilities, which depends on the n = 2.  b and  m are increment in bending stress and membrane
size, shape and location of the crack in the component and mate- stress respectively. When a = t and BR = 0 for thin cylindrical shell
rial properties (Central Electricity Generating Board, 1994; BS7910, portion of the vessels, one can find the size of through-thickness
1999). If operating at high temperature, it changes with time owing crack (2c*) from Eq. (8) as
to creep.   t 2
The leak rate may be estimated from the relevant experimen-
c∗ = c2 + (9)
tal data, or utilizing the computer codes for single- and two-phase 0.92
flows for a wide range of through-cracks (Rudland et al., 2002; Gosh
For the specified through-thickness crack size (2c*), it is possible
et al., 2002; Changa et al., 2010; Gilla and Davey, 2014) that appro-
to estimate the failure pressure of the vessel (Christopher et al.,
priately accounts for the surface roughness, number of turns, etc.,
2004a, 2005a) and the corresponding maximum stress intensity
for the crack mechanisms of interest.
factor (Kmax ). Since the relationship between Kmax and  f in Eq.
(1) considers crack growth prior to failure, the maximum stress
intensity factor Kmax can be treated as the plane stress fracture
1.5. Objectives of the present study toughness (KC ). Using Eq. (4), it is possible to estimate the plane
strain fracture toughness (KIC ), which can be utilized to estimate
Generation of experimental data requires specification of sur- the pressure (or leak pressure prior to break) at the initiation of the
face cracks and cyclic pressure; creation of the specified cracks at through-thickness crack (2c*) growth.
desired locations in the vessels; generation of data on the devel-
opment of crack shape; and recording the leak crack size or the 3. Stress intensity factor
final crack size at failure of the vessels in addition to the proper-
ties of the material. The highly stressed cylindrical shell portion Cylindrical shell portion of the pressure vessel induces high
of the pressure vessel governs the design. Planning of such exper- stresses under internal pressure and hence governs the design.
iments are expensive and demand excellent laboratory facilities, Newman (1976) has provided expressions for evaluation of the
skill in introducing cracks at appropriate locations of the vessels, stress intensity factor (KI ) for cylindrical pressure vessels (see Fig. 1)
reliable detection techniques, and measurement of crack sizes. Test containing an axial surface crack.
results of Rana (1987) will be useful to examine the adequacy of 
LBB methodology. This paper proposes a simplified approach for a
KI =  M (10)
assessing the leak-before-break or failure of the flawed pressure 2
vessels. Prediction of crack growth in pressure vessels under service
Here the hoop stress,
loads is one of the prime requirements in the present study. The
procedure is validated through comparison of existing test data. PRi
= (11)
t
Magnification factor,
2. Crack growth modeling M = Me fs (12)
Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code presents Crack shape factor,
a fatigue crack growth evaluation procedure from surface or sub-  a 1.65
surface cracks. The procedure requires the range of stress intensity 2 = 1 + 1.464 for a ≤ c,
factor (K), incremental flaw growth (a) to update the flaw size c
for proceeding to the next transient. The flaw is assumed to grow  c 1.65
geometrically similar large size. and 2 = 1 + 1.464 for a > c (13)
a
 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26 23

Nageswara Rao and Acharya, 1989a,b, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998;

Govindan Potti et al., 2000; Rama Sarma et al., 2002; Christopher
et al., 2002, 2004b, 2005b).

4.1. Failure pressure estimation

The fracture strength ( f ) of cylindrical vessel having an axial

surface or through-thickness crack is obtained by solving the frac-
ture strength equation (19) and the failure pressure is obtained
from Pf = t f /Ri . If the outer or inner surface crack in the cylin-
drical vessel under internal pressure grows slowly in a stable
manner, and the crack depth grows to the other inner or outer
surface (i.e., the depth equals the thickness of the shell: a = t), the
Fig. 1. Cylindrical pressure vessel with an axial surface crack under internal pres-
sure.
size of the through-thickness crack (2c*) can be estimated from
the crack growth model. Leaking of the vessel can be expected
after growing the surface crack to the through-thickness crack
    q (2c*). It is obvious that the leaking pressure must be lower than
Me = M1 + 
c
− M1
a
(14) the failure pressure of vessel having a through 2c = 2c∗ , the max-
a t imum stress intensity factor (Kmax ) can be obtained from Eq.
(10) for the through-thickness crack size (2c∗ ), which can be
a
obtained from the fracture strength ( f ). Substituting the hoop
M1 = 1.13 − 0.1 for a ≤ c,
c stress () by the fracture strength ( f ), crack depth, a = t, and
 c
c the crack length, 2c = 2c∗ , the maximum stress intensity factor
and M1 = 1 + 0.03 for a > c, (15) (Kmax ) can be obtained from Eq. (10) for the through-thickness
a a
crack (2c∗ ).
Crack growth data of materials for the specified load spectrum
1/2
fs = (1 + 0.52s + 1.292s − 0.0743s ) for 0 ≤ s ≤ 10, (16) (cyclic or sustained or combination of both cyclic and sustained
c a loading) can be generated from the compact tension specimens as
s =  , (17) per the ASTM E647 standards. It is observed that crack extension
Ri t t takes place in the component prior to the initiation of failure. For
 a 3 negligibly small crack extension, the stress intensity factor evalu-
q=2+8 (18) ated from the critical load considering the initial crack size is called
c
as the plane strain fracture toughness (KIC ). The plane stress fracture
a is the depth and c is half the crack length of a surface crack, Ri is the toughness (KC ) evaluated from the R-curve of the material consid-
inner radius and t is the thickness of the cylindrical vessel. Substi- ers the significant crack extension, which is thickness as well as
tuting the hoop stress () by the fracture stress ( f ) the maximum geometry dependent. The lower bound fracture toughness KIC is
stress intensity factor (Kmax ) is obtained from Eq. (10). independent of both thickness and geometry of the specimen. In
linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), the plastic zone near the
4. Fracture strength equation crack-tip is negligibly small when compared to the crack size, and
KIC be the critical stress intensity factor, which is related to the crit-
For  =  f , Eq. (10) gives Kmax for the specified crack size. Using ical strain energy release rate (GIC ), or to the critical J-integral value
this Kmax in Eq. (1), one can find the fracture strength equation in 2 )/E. Here E is the Young’s mod-
(JIC ). In LEFM, GIC = JIC = ((1 − 2 )KIC
the form ulus and  is the Poisson’s ratio. Crack growth takes place prior to
  p    failure, if the stress intensity factor (KI ) of the cracked body exceeds
f u (a)1/2 M f
(1 − m) + m+ −1=0 (19) the KIC . This is applicable to all metallic structures whose critical
u KF u
stress intensity factor is equal to the plane stress fracture tough-
Here, the hoop stress of the unflawed cylindrical pressure vessel ness (KC ). It should be noted that if the fracture data corresponds
at failure to the plane strain fracture toughness (KIC ) of the specimens, then
Pb Ri the fracture parameters in Eq. (19) are: KF = KIC , m = 0, and p from
u = (20) Eq. (2).
t
The bursting pressure of unflawed cylindrical vessel from the 4.2. Leak pressure estimation
Faupel’s formula,
2 ys
   t
 Since the relationship between Kmax and  f in Eq. (1) considers
Pb = √ ys 2 − ln 1 + (21) crack growth prior to failure the maximum stress intensity factor
3 ult Ri
(Kmax ) can be treated as the plane stress fracture toughness (KC ).
 ys is the yield strength or 0.2% proof stress (RP0.2 ) and  ult Using Eq. (4), one can estimate the plane strain fracture toughness
is the ultimate tensile strengths of the material. Using the (KIC ). Setting KF = KIC , m = 0 and p from Eq. (2), one can estimate the
Newton–Raphson iterative method, the non-linear equation (19) is pressure (or leak pressure prior to break) at the initiation of the
solved for  f . The adequacy of the fracture strength equation (19) through-thickness crack (2c∗ ) growth from Eq. (19).
has been examined by considering fracture data of tensile speci-
mens and cylindrical pressure vessels having surface cracks as well 5. Results and discussion
as through-thickness cracks. The fracture analysis results of the
cracked configurations (viz. compact tension specimens, surface as In order to examine the adequacy of the present simplified
well as through-thickness center crack tensile specimens, cylindri- approach, test data of Rana (1987) from open literature is consid-
cal pressure vessels having an axial or a through crack) are found ered. Rana (1987) has conducted pressure tests on the modified
to be in good agreement with test data (Nageswara Rao, 1992; AISI 4130 steel seamless high pressure gas cylinders having 7.6 mm
24 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26

Table 1
Fracture analysis on ruptured AISI 4130 steel cylindrical vessels having an axial surface crack. (Yield strength,  ys = 1097 MPa; ultimate tensile strength  ult = 1180 MPa; and
√
fracture parameters KF = 210 MPa m; m = 0.8136 and p = 35.4.) Diameter of the cylindrical vessel = 228.6 mm.

Thickness, t (mm) Surface crack size (mm) a/t Failure pressure, Pf (MPa) Relative error (%)

Length (2c) Depth (a) Test (Rana, 1987) Fracture analysis

7.5 25.4 5.7 0.760 47.3 45.6 3.6

7.2 25.4 6.1 0.847 39.4 41.3 −4.8
7.8 76.2 6.0 0.769 26.5 26.5 0
7.4 76.2 6.3 0.851 22.3 22.0 1.3

nominal wall thickness, 229 mm diameter and 1.4 m height. Sharp,

semi-elliptical shaped EDM flaws (of varying lengths of 25–76 mm
and flaw depth to thickness ratio of 0.5–0.9) were machined on the
outer surface of the test cylinders. Four flawed cylinders subjected
to fatigue loading by pressurization, whereas six flawed cylinders
subjected to monotonically pressurization with water to failure.
All ruptured cylinders exhibited flat fracture with fairly large size
shear lips, indicating plane stress fracture mode.
Fracture analysis has been carried out on ruptured cylinders.
Fracture parameters (KF , m and p) in Eq. (1) evaluated from
√
the fracture data are KF = 210 MPa m; m = 0.8136; and p = 35.4
respectively. To examine the adequacy of these fracture parame-
ters, failure pressure is estimated from the measured surface cracks
on the cylindrical vessels. Table 1 gives comparison of estimated
failure pressure of flawed cylindrical vessels with test results (Rana,
1987). Fracture analysis results are found to be in good agreement
with test results. Fig. 1 shows the failure assessment diagram gen-
erated from the fracture parameters using Eq. (1). Fracture data of
the vessels are also presented in Fig. 2. Test data (Rana, 1987) is Fig. 2. Failure assessment diagram.

close to the failure boundary.

Two cylindrical vessels subjected to monotonically pressuriza-
tion experience leaking. Failure pressure estimates of these vessels
in Table 2 are found to be higher than the recorded leak pressure.
From the crack growth analysis, the sizes of the through-thickness
crack for these two vessels are 53.1 and 53.6 mm respectively. The
expected failure pressure of vessels is 23.3 and 25.5 MPa respec-
tively, which are less by 5 MPa to the observed leak pressure.
Specifying the initial flaw size of the vessels and using the fracture
parameters, the estimates of failure pressure are 31.9 and 30.6 MPa
respectively, which are in good agreement with the observed leak
pressure values of 28.6 and 30.5 MPa. Matching of estimated failure
pressure with leak pressure in this case is mainly due to the depth
of the surface flaw above 80% of the shell wall thickness. The stress
intensity factor for such surface flaws will be close to that for the
case of through cracks having the same length of the surface flaw.
Table 3 gives fracture analysis results on cylindrical vessels
which were subjected to repeated cyclic pressure loading. Since
these vessels are leaked, the sizes of through-thickness crack (2c∗ )
are estimated from the crack growth modeling and estimated the
failure pressure by specifying 2c*. The estimated through crack size
(2c∗ ) in Table 3 is found too close to the measured one. Failure
pressure estimates are found to be lower than those recorded leak
pressure values. For the measured through-thickness crack (2c∗ )
and the repeated cyclic pressure, the plane stress fracture tough-
ness (KC ) is evaluated. Using Eq. (4), the corresponding plane-strain
fracture toughness (KIC ) is worked out for obtaining the leak pres-
sure. Fracture analysis results in Table 4 provide the leak pressure
for each vessel, which is obtained by replacing the stress inten-
sity factor in Eq. (10) with the plane-strain fracture toughness (KIC )
of the material. It is preferable to have leak pressure close to the

Table 2
Fracture analysis on leaked AISI 4130 steel cylindrical vessels under monotonically pressurization. (Yield strength,  ys = 1097 MPa ; ultimate tensile strength  ult = 1180 MPa;
√
and fracture parameters KF = 210 MPa m; m = 0.8136 and p = 35.4.) Diameter of the cylindrical vessel = 228.6 mm.

Thickness, t (mm) Surface crack size (mm) a/t Leak pressure, Pf (MPa) Relative error (%)

Length (2c) Depth (a) Test (Rana, 1987) Fracture analysis

7.2 50.8 5.4 0.750 28.6 31.9 −11.5

7.8 50.8 6.8 0.872 30.5 30.6 −0.3

Table 3
Fracture analysis on AISI 4130 steel cylindrical vessels subjected to repeated cyclic pressure loading. (Yield strength,  ys = 1097 MPa ; ultimate tensile strength  ult = 1180 MPa;
√
and fracture parameters KF = 210 MPa m; m = 0.8136 and p = 35.4.) Diameter of the cylindrical vessel = 228.6 mm.
a
Thickness, t (mm) Surface crack size (mm) t
Through-crack, 2c* (mm) Leak pressure, Pf (MPa) Relative error (%)

Length (2c) Depth (a) Test (Rana, 1987) Fracture analysis

7.3 25.4 2.5 0.342 29.9 (30.5)a 34.8 34.4 1.2

7.2 25.4 2.5 0.347 29.8 (30.5) 34.1 33.9 0.6
7.7 30.5 2.8 0.364 34.8 (35.6) 36.5 33.6 7.9
7.3 30.5 2.9 0.397 34.4 (35.6) 35.3 31.8 9.9
a
Results in parenthesis are measured ones (Rana, 1987).
 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26
Table 4
Estimation of leak pressure for the flawed cylinders.
Thickness, t Through crack, 2c* Cyclic pressure
(mm) (mm) (MPa)
7.3 30.48 34.8
7.2 30.48 34.1
7.7 35.56 36.5
7.3 35.56 35.3
service pressure to prevent the vessel from failure. If the leak pres-
sure is found to be lower than the service pressure, the initial crack
size should be reduced appropriately or modify the design of the
vessel.
6. Concluding remarks
This paper examines the growth of surface cracks in pressure
vessels to study the possibility of forming stable through-thickness
cracks during service and causing leak prior to failure. Then there
is a possibility of preventing the vessel failure, if this leak-before-
break phenomenon takes place. A simplified approach is followed
for assessing the leak-before-break or failure of the flawed pres-
sure vessels (which has not been utilized anywhere in the open
literature) and validated through comparison of existing test data.
The task is involved, if not impossible for a single agency to
generate sufficient data on the development of defect shapes in
pressure vessels and piping. Cooperation is required from research
groups of several industries to fulfill the tasks. LBB validation trials
and reliable leak detection methods are required on a wide range
of vessels under various fluid conditions to enhance confidence in
utilizing the concept.
Production and process industries demand the designers of
pressure vessels and piping to overcome the chance of cata-
strophic failures which cause considerable economic losses and
safety-related issues by selecting appropriate materials and design
methodologies. Hence, selection of materials and design should be
in such a way that an existing crack grows slowly in a stable man-
ner introducing LBB, which minimizes the shut down period and
assures safety. Also, the general public is not risked.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their con-
structive criticism and valuable suggestions to improve the quality
of presentation.
References
Arzhaev, A.I., Bougaenko, S.E., Denisov, I.N., Kiselyov, V.A., 1996. Leak-before-break
criteria and strength monitoring implementation impact on in-service inspec-
tion of RBMK primary circuit components. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping 66,
359–365.
ASTM E399-12E3 , 2013. Standard test method for linear-elastic plane strain fracture
toughness KIC of metallic materials, vol. 03.01. American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM E561-10E2 , 2013. Standard test method for K-R curve determination, vol.
03.01. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Bartholome, G., Wellein, R., 1995. Leak-before-break behavior of nuclear piping
systems. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 23, 145–149.
Bergman, M., Brickstad, B., 1995. A procedure for analysis of leak before break in
pipes subjected to fatigue or IGSCC accounting for complex crack shapes. Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 18, 1173–1188.
Bergman, M., Brickstad, B., 1997. A procedure for analysis of leak before break in
pipes subjected to fatigue or IGSCC. Weld. World 39, 16–27.
Bourga, R., Moore, P., Janin, Y.J., Wang, B., Sharples, J., 2015. Leak-before-break: global
perspectives and procedures. Int. J. Press. Vessel Piping 129–130, 43–49.
Bryan, R.H., Bolt, S.E., Merkle, J.G., 1982. Whitman: quick-look report on test of
immediate vessel V-8a-Tearing behavior of lower upper. ORNL/SST-4 (August).
Oakridge National Laboratory.
BS7910, 1999. Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in
Metallic Structures. British Standards Institution, UK.
25
Hoop stress,  KC KIC Leak pressure
√ √
(MPa) (MPa m) (MPa m) (MPa)
545.0 151.9 96.0 22.0
541.3 151.2 95.5 21.5
541.8 169.8 102.4 18.4
552.7 174.8 102.2 20.6
Central Electricity Generating Board, 1994. Assessment of the integrity of structures
containing defects. CEGB Document No. R/H/R-6-Rev.3 (April).
Changa, Y.S., Jeonga, J.U., Kima, Y.J., Hwangb, S.S., Kimb, H.P., 2010. Enhancement of
leak rate estimation model for corroded cracked thin tubes. Int. J. Press. Vessel
Piping 87, 52–57.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayan Samy, K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2002. Fracture strength
of flawed cylindrical pressure vessels under cryogenic temperatures. Int. J. Cryo-
gen. 42, 661–673.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayanasamy, K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2004a. Fracture
behaviour of maraging steel tensile specimens and pressurized cylindrical ves-
sels. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 27, 177–186.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayanasamy, K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2004b. Failure assess-
ment on tensile cracked specimens of aluminium alloys. Trans. ASME J. Press.
Vessel Technol. 126, 404–406.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayanasamy, K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2005a. Correlating
cryogenic fracture strength using a modified two-parameter method. J. Eng.
Fract. Mech. 72, 475–490.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayanasamy, K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2005b. Failure assess-
ment of flawed steel cylinders tested under internal pressure. Steel Grips (J. Steel
Relat. Mater.) 3, 130–137.
Drubaya, B., Mariea, S., Chapuliota, S., Lacirea, M.H., Michelb, B., Deschanelsc, H.,
2003. A16: guide for defect assessment at elevated temperature. Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Piping 80, 499–516.
Gilla, P., Davey, K., 2014. Leak rate models and their thermal interaction with struc-
tures for leak-before-break applications. Nucl. Eng. Des. 275, 219–228.
Gosh, B., Bandyopadhyay, S.K., Gupta, S.K., Kushwaha, H.S., Venkat Raj, V., 2002.
Leak rates through cracks and slits in PHT pipes for LBB. Nucl. Eng. Des. 212,
85–97.
Govindan Potti, P.K., Nageswara Rao, B., Srivastava, V.K., 2000. Residual strength
of aluminium-lithium alloy center surface crack tension specimen at cryogenic
temperatures. Int. J. Cryogen. 40, 789–795.
Iida, K., Fujii, E., 1973. Fatigue crack propagation from a weld defect in a 100 mm
thick joint. In: Second International Conference on Pressure Vessel and Piping
Technology, San Antonio, TX, USA, October.
Irwin, G.R., 1962. Relation of crack toughness measurements to practical applica-
tions. Weld. J. Suppl. 41, 519s–528s.
Irwin, G.R., de Wit, R., 1983. A summary of fracture mechanics concepts. J. Test. Eval.
11, 56–65.
Kanazawa, T., Mechida, S., Itoga, K., 1972. Fatigue crack propagation from a surface
flaw. J. Soc. Naval Archit. (Jpn.) 132, 395.
Kannan, P., Amirthagadeswaran, K.S., Christopher, T., Nageswara Rao, B., 2013. Fail-
ures of high-temperature critical components in combined cycle power plants.
J. Failure Anal. Prevent. 13 (4), 409–419.
Kawaguchi, S., Hagiwara, N., Masuda, T., Toyoda, M., 2004. Evaluation of leak-before-
break (LBB) behavior for axially notched X65 and X80 line pipes. J. Offshore Mech.
Arct. Eng. 126 (4), 350–357.
Kawahara, M., Kurihara, M., 1975. A preliminary study on fatigue crack growth from
a surface flaw under combined tensile and bending loads. J. Soc. Naval Archit.
(Jpn.) 137, 207.
Kiefner, J.F., Maxey, W.A., Eiber, R.J., Duffy, A.R., 1973. Failure stress levels of flaws
in pressurized cylinders. In: Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Tough-
ness Testing. ASTM STP 536. American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp. 461–481.
Kim, Y.J., 2004. Non-linear fracture mechanics analysis of through-wall cracked
pipes for leak-before-break analysis. J. Press. Equip. Syst. 2, 71–78.
Kim, Y.J., Huh, N.S., Kim, Y.J., 2005. Engineering J-estimation methods for LBB analysis
of nuclear piping. JSME Int. J. Ser. A 48 (1).
Moan, G.D., Coleman, C.E., Price, E.G., Rodgers, D.K., Sagat, S., 1990. Leak-before-
break in the pressure tubes of CANDU reactors. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping 43,
1–21.
Nageswara Rao, B., 1992. Instability load for cracked configurations in plate materi-
als. Eng. Fract. Mech. 43, 887–893.
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1989a. Fracture analysis of a surface cracked plate
under tension. Eng. Fract. Mech. 32, 551–559.
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1989b. Fracture strength for thin structural com-
ponents containing surface cracks. Z. Metallkunde 80, 596–600.
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1993. Structural integrity assessment on M250
grade maraging steel pressure vessels via the fracture mechanics approach. J.
Aeronaut. Soc. India 45, 308–322.
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1996. Fracture behaviour of a high strength
medium carbon low alloy steel. Eng. Fract. Mech. 53, 303–308.
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1997. Failure assessment on 34CrMo4 Grade steel
cylindrical pressure vessels with an axial surface crack. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping
72, 157–163.
26 P. Kannan et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 302 (2016) 20–26
Nageswara Rao, B., Acharya, A.R., 1998. Failure assessment on M300 grade managing
steel cylindrical pressure vessels with an internal surface crack. Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Piping 75, 537–543.
Nam, K.W., Abn, S.H., 2002. Crack opening behavior of penetrated crack under fatigue
load. KSME Int. J. 16, 24–31.
Newman Jr., J.C., 1976. Fracture analysis of surface and through cracks in cylindrical
pressure vessels. NASA-TND-8325.
Pacholkova, S., Taylor, H., 2002. Theoretical background of “leak-before-break” as a
concept in pressure vessels design. Metal, 1–8 (14–16.5.2002).
Pellini, W.S., 1969. Evolution of engineering principles for fracture-safe design of
steel structures. Naval Research Laboratory Report NRL-6957 (September).
Pierce, W., 1970. Effects of surface and through cracks on failure of pressurized thin-
walled cylinders of 2014-T6 aluminum. NASA Report TND 6099 (November).
Proc IAEAP, 1983. Theoretical and experimental work on LMFBR steam generator
integrity and reliability with a particular reference to leak development and
detection. IAEA Document IWGFR/50 (November).
Rama Sarma, B.S.V., Govindan Potti, P.K., Nageswara Rao, B., 2002. Failure behaviour
of an ultra high strength low alloy steel. Mater. Sci. Technol. 18, 787–798.
Rana, M.D., 1987. Experimental verification of fracture toughness requirement for
LBB performance of 150–175 ksi strength level gas cylinder. J. Press. Vessel
Technol. 109, 435–439.
Rintamaa, R., Keinanen, H., Torronen, K., 1988. Fracture behavior of large scale pres-
sure vessels in the hydrotest. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping 34, 265–291.
Roos, E., Herter, K.H., Julisch, P., Bartholome, G., Senski, G., 1989. Assessment of large
scale pipe tests by fracture mechanics approximation procedures with regard
to leak-before-break. Nucl. Eng. Des. 112, 183–195.
Rudland, D.L., Wilkowski, G., Scott, P., 2002. Effect of crack morphology parame-
ters on leak-rate calculations in LBB evaluations. Int. J. Press. Vessel Piping 79,
99–102.
Setz, W., Gruter, L., 1990. Tolerable flaws for the leak-before-break criterion. Int. J.
Press. Vessel. Piping 42, 193–202.
Sharples, J., 2012. STYLE: comparison of leak-before-break methodologies applied in
Europe. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference,
pp. 763–768.
Sharples, J.K., Clayton, A.M., 1990. A leak-before-break assessment method for pres-
sure vessels and some current unresolved issues. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping 43,
317–327.
Subhananda Rao, A., Krishna, Y., Nageswara Rao, B., 2005. Fracture tough-
ness of nitramine and composite solid propellants. Mater. Sci. Eng. A403,
125–133.
Toughry, M., 2002. Development of Accept Reject Criteria for Requalification of High
Pressure Steel and Aluminium Cylinders. Non-destructive Testing Information
Analysis Center (NTIAC), Austin (Final Report).
Wakai, T., Machida, H., Yoshida, S., Xu, Y., Tsukimori, K., 2014. Demonstration of
leak-before-break in Japan’s sodium cooled fast reactor (JSFR) pipes. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 269, 88–96.
Wilkowski, G., 2000. Leak-before-break: what does it really mean? J. Press. Vessel
Technol. 122, 267–272.
Wilkowski, G.M., Eiber, R.J., 1981. Evaluation of tensile failure of Girth weld repair
grooves in pipe subjected to offshore laying stresses. Trans. ASME J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 103, 48–57.
Yoo, Y.S., Huh, N.S., 2013. On a leak-before-break assessment methodology for piping
systems of fast breeder reactor. Eng. Fail. Anal. 33, 439–448.
Zdarek, J., Pecinka, L., Kadecka, P., 1995. Leak-before-break criterion applied to VVER
440/230 unit. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 23, 117–123.
Zhou, J.Q., Shen, S.M., 1996. Development of the leak-before-break assessment
method to reduce some shortcomings. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Piping 69, 75–77.